Mindfulness in Early Buddhism
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of one out of various types of mindfulness descriptions
in the Buddhist traditions, namely the notion of mindfulness as reflected
in the early Buddhist discourses.
- MNDFULNESS (sati, smirti) means a special kind of nonjudgmental attention, unbiased bare awareness, acceptance (not resistance) of what is but simply watching it with vigilance and wakefulness (Wisdom Quarterly).
INTRODUCTION: A recent survey of research on meditation, prepared for the US Department of Health and Human Services, comes to the rather
disconcerting conclusion that “scientific research on meditation
practices does not appear to have a common theoretical perspective and
is characterized by poor methodological quality.
“Firm conclusions on
the effects of meditation practices in healthcare cannot be drawn based
on the available evidence. Future research on meditation practices must
be more rigorous in the design and execution of studies,” in particular
“specific attention must be paid to developing definitions for these
[meditation] techniques that are both conceptually and operationally
useful. Such definitions are a prerequisite for scientific research.”
 |
| The best Buddhists practice Buddhism. |
In
the case of mindfulness practices, “general descriptions of mindfulness
vary from investigator to investigator and there is no consensus on the
defining components or processes” [1]. This finding clearly points to a need to invest more time into the
conceptual models that stand behind research into the effects of
mindfulness practice [2].
While we do have excellent operational
definitions of mindfulness that capture the modern-day clinical
perspective on this particular mental quality [3], our understanding of
mindfulness could be broadened by turning to its definition and mode
of function in the Buddhist traditions.
Examining the historical roots
of mindfulness in its traditional context would enable ascertaining
similarities and differences vis-ร -vis the notion of mindfulness in the modern-day setting and perhaps open up new avenues for research into
the significance and effects of its cultivation.
The theoretical construct of mindfulness and the practices informed
by this notion have gone through considerable development during
nearly [2,600] years in the history of Buddhist thought, making it
practically impossible to speak of “
Buddhist mindfulness” (
sati) as if this
were a monolithic concept.
Moreover, a proper assessment of any
specific form of mindfulness needs to be based on a comparative study
that takes into account all extant traditions pertaining to a particular
historical period, instead of uncritically relying on a certain school or
line of textual transmission because that happens to be the one with
which one is personally familiar.
 |
| Analayo shares teacher with WQ: Bhikkhu Bodhi |
Ven. Anฤlayo is a bhikkhu (Theravada Buddhist monk), scholar, and meditation teacher who was born in Germany in 1962 and went forth in 1995 in Sri Lanka's Theravada monastic tradition. He is best known for his comparative studies of Early Buddhist Texts as preserved by the various Early Buddhist schools. More
Hence, as a starting point for further research into the theoretical
foundations of the multiple mindfulnesses found in the various Buddhist
traditions, in this paper I take up the notion of mindfulness as
reflected in the historically earliest stages of Buddhist thought that is
accessible to us through textual records.
 |
| "Meditation" means much more than sitting. |
These are the early discourses (
suttas, sutras, texts) that according to tradition were spoken by the Buddha and his [enlightened] disciples,
which have come down to us as part of the canonical scriptures of
various Buddhist schools in the
Nikฤyas (Pali canon) or
ฤgamas (Sanskrit canon).
In terms of school
affiliation, while this material has been transmitted [orally] within reciter
lineages that eventually came to be part of the Dharmaguptaka,
Sarvฤstivฤda, or Theravฤda schools, and so on, its origins are earlier than the
formation of schools.
Hence, comparative study of parallel versions preserved in a variety of Buddhist languages -- such as Chinese, Pฤli,
Sanskrit, and Tibetan -- offers us a window on the earliest stages in the
development of Buddhist conceptions of mindfulness, in as much as
these have left their traces in literature [4].
These in turn would have been
the starting point for later conceptions of this mental quality and how
to cultivate it.
1. The Four Ways of Establishing Mindfulness
Central for my present purpose are descriptions of mindfulness in
action, which instruct how establishing mindfulness (Pali
satipaแนญแนญhฤna, Sanskrit
smแนtyupasthฤna) functions as a form of meditation practice.
Independent
of whether such instructions are descriptive or prescriptive, they do allow us an assessment of the notion(s) of mindfulness held by those
responsible for the formulation of these descriptions.
The early discourses describe four main areas of practice for the
establishing of mindfulness, which are:
- the body,
- feelings,
- mental states,
- dharmas ["things" detailed in the two Satipatthana Suttas].
A detailed exposition of these four is found in the
Satipaแนญแนญhฤna Sutta
(as well as in the longer
Mahฤ Satipaแนญแนญhฤna Sutta) of the Pฤli canon of
the Theravฤda tradition, with parallel versions found in the
Madhyama-ฤgama and in the
Ekottarika-ฤgama, two discourse collections
preserved in Chinese translation [5].
Regarding the first of these two
Chinese ฤgamas, scholarly opinion generally tends to consider this
discourse collection to have been transmitted within the Sarvฤstivฤda
tradition(s) [6].
The school affiliation of the Ekottarika-ฤgama, however,
is still a subject of continued discussion and thus is best considered
uncertain [7].
Comparison of the three versions brings to light several differences [8]. In relation to the first area of body contemplation, the three parallel
versions agree on taking up the following three topics:
- the body’s
anatomical constitution,
- the body as made up of material elements, and
- the stages of decay of a corpse that has been left out in the open to rot
away [9].
 |
| Early Buddhism is closer to historical Buddha |
In the case of the first of these three, according to the fairly similar
instructions given in the parallel versions, contemplation of the
anatomical constitution of the body requires reviewing its various parts,
such as its hair, nails, teeth, and so on [10].
Such reviewing could presumably take
place by way of an internal meditative scanning of the body or else as
a reflective recollection. This exercise can act as an antidote to conceit
and to sensual desire.
The parallel versions agree that an examination of the body’s anatomy
should be undertaken from the perspective of the “impure” or “unclean”
nature of some of its parts [11].
The term “impure” or “unclean” reflects conceptions prevalent in ancient India [12]. At times the discourses (sutras) employ the alternative term “not beautiful” [13], which in a less provocative
manner still conveys the basic objective of deconstructing the attraction
of bodily beauty.
Whether “impure” or “not beautiful [compared to its un-deconstructed appearance],” there can be little doubt
that carrying out this instruction involves a purposive element of
evaluation [14]. At the background of this stands the early Buddhist notion
that the attraction of sensuality is based on an erroneous perception [15].
This erroneous [deceptive] or even distorted perception is seen as requiring a form
of de-conditioning by inculcating a perception of the body as lacking
beauty or even as being impure.
The point of this mode of evaluation is not to nurture in the practitioner
an attitude of negativity towards the body [16].
The evaluation introduced
into mindfulness practice in this way is meant as a detergent that
purifies the mind from sensual attachment to the body, a cleansing
process whose final aim is a balanced attitude.
More
#/media/File:Ni%C3%B1a_menonita_en_Cuauht%C3%A9moc.jpg){kind=link}